Sir, - Paraic Kenny (September 3rd) is a bit harsh in berating Genetic Concern and the Green Party for their impromptu reaction to the recent World In Action programme on the genetic modification of foodstuffs. We should be thankful that there are people out there asking pertinent questions about some very serious issues. Debating the benefits versus the risks of genetic engineering depends on access to information. The sources of that information are scientific and industrial research institutions, which have a monopoly on establishing "facts". There is no effective opposition to this monopoly and for our peace of mind we are supposed to trust in science's capacity for internal scrutiny and in the checks and balances of its methodology.
However, only the most naive or gullible person would assume that the close alliance between science and the biotechnology industry has no impact on the fading ideals of an objective, value-free and ideologically neutral process of inquiry dedicated to the benefit of humanity. Science laboratories, their research projects and the scientists' salaries depend to a large extent on funding from the industrial sector. Serving the needs of industry (i.e. contributing to increasing profits) introduces a bias as to what questions can be asked and what projects can be pursued. For example, the pharmaceutical industry is unlikely to generously fund research into the efficacious nature of homeopathy, or the possible deleterious effects of mass immunisation programmes. In such a context, facts and information may not be that easy to come by, especially if their public availability runs contrary to the commercial needs of the industry.
Biotechnology presents itself as the saviour of the future world's food production problems. Yet most of the research in this area is devoted to the generation of herbicide resistant crops, with the associated dependence on the purchase and use of both the herbicides and the seeds resistant to them.
Big science is big business, and its rapid expansion pressurises governments to yield accomodatingly to the promise of jobs and other proposed benefits. In the past, the nuclear power lobby was in the driving seat, promising limitless cheap and "clean" electricity. What we have is very expensive electricity with a dirt problem of an inconceivable scale - this is the least one could say. The nuclear industry did very well out of the past 40 years, but I'm not so sure about the general population. Anticipating unforeseen problems resulting from the use of biotechnology (and they will appear as inevitably as the sun rises) requires the vigilant attention of neutral scientists and observers who are well funded for the task, and who are not compromised through association with the industry in any way.
The current EPA, which provide licences for the industry, does not meet this simple criterion. Instead we rely on a few individuals in voluntary groups such as Genetic Concern to argue for restraint and re-appraisal in relation to a highly complex situation, the pros and cons of which are beyond the understanding of many. Unfortunately, they are likely to be ridiculed and pretty much ignored, just like the antinuclear lobby before them.
Extracting the full benefits from biotechnology is not necessarily congruent with the commercial needs of the industry itself. As with good governments, the most public benefit will accrue from a strong, well-informed and well-funded opposition lobby. One day, pigs might fly, but until they do we have every reason to be concerned. - Yours, etc., Bill Sheeran,
Kenilworth Square,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.